One more legal segment, although it's talking about the NCAA, so it's pseudo-legal.

With Joe Simon, it's real legal.

Joe Simon is a terrific criminal defense attorney at the Michigan Defenders.com.

He is in studio with me right now.

And Joe, in the real court of law, and then we talk about the NCAA side of it,

if you have, like, evidence on your phone and you toss it in the pond, like, what happens?

So there are inferences of guilt that you can use in a courtroom.

For example, flight is one of them.

So a jury can be instructed that if the police see Ira and Ira sees the police and turns around and starts running away,

that they can use that as some inference of a guilty state of mind.

Similarly, things like destruction of evidence can be deemed in a prosecutorial eye

or maybe in a sentencing phase, a punishment phase, as an inference of guilt.

So that's why, I believe, for the court of public opinion, that was repeated and repeated

and repeated without the corresponding affirmation.

And that's, that's real, that's really a biased. That's not, if you're in a

sentencing phase, I don't think you can really do that without promoting the equal, making a

factual finding. They didn't. They just kept saying it without that finding in or I think the

reason for that is really exposing a bias. The other thing that I want to talk about, though, in terms of punishment, Ira,

is, you know, in the law, the criminal law, we punish people, why do we punish? There are four stated

purposes for punishment. The protection of society, the deterrence, both specific

and general, so that means so that you don't do it again and so that you send the message

everybody else. Yeah, the general you don't do it again. There's retribution. That means

...